Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaya
Just a thought, if you had a test vehicle with a rigid "suspension" that allowed you to adjust camber (and maybe other settings)? I'm thinking drive it in circles and track lateral g's reached with different camber settings. I would think that optimum camber would change based on lateral acceleration and having a vehicle where the camber didn't change under lateral g's would yield more precise results.
|
eeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh having to think to much, too many non-linear relationships with tires.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shankenstein
@ RBbugBITme ,
Thanks for helping out the thread with your mad WinGeo skills. I've added your Caster, Roll Center, and Motion Ratio data to the OP. If we can support your efforts/project, don't hesitate to ask.
I was curious about how you pulled the points for your model. It sounds pretty precise. Is the Toyota 3D model an assembly file or one giant file? What kind of access are you given? |
I was provided with separate 3D models of certain suspension and chassis components. All of them had the exact same origin so if I created an assembly myself and mated the origins of all the individual files I would eventually have an entire car model with all sheet metal, suspension, etc. perfectly placed in space. I then place axes and points in the center of each suspension pick up point or in the center of a ball joint. Then create a vehicle centerline by placing a plane at midpoint between any left and right side suspension point. Follow that up with a sketch of an OEM tire cross section to create an realistic ground plane and then measure fore/aft distances from the front hub centerline because that is how WinGeo requires the measurements in that direction (negative is forward of front axle centerline).
I'm also provided with assemblies of just the suspension in 3 different positions. I wasn't quite sure what this was but I found it the middle position was ride height and the other two were *designed* full droop/compression.